Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Night Vision Technology for Close-Quarters Combat Operations: How Field of View Impacts Live-Fire Scenarios

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Human Factors and Mechanical Engineering for Defense and Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As early as the Vietnam War, the United States Military has employed various forms of night vision goggles (NVGs) to enhance warfighter capability under low light conditions. In recent years, the most common form of NVGs used by US ground forces has been the binocular or “dual tube” variety, such as the AN/PVS-15 and AN/PVS-31A. Compared to binocular NVGs, modern panoramic night vision goggles (PNVG), such as the GPNVG-18, provide potential benefits by more than doubling the field of view. This capability could be particularly useful in urban environments and specifically during room-clearing operations. However, previous human performance studies with NVGs have largely focused on aviation operations rather than ground forces undertaking a close-combat mission set. Combined with the emerging technology of the PNVG, and the lack of live fire during testing, there is little empirical evidence about the relative human performance benefits of having a wider field of view during close-combat operations. The current investigation addressed this issue by examining how wider peripheral vision impacted the process of dynamic room entries. Using highly trained military operators, live ammunition, and three separate live-fire room-clearing scenarios, we examined performance differences between the current technology in binocular and panoramic NVGs. Our results suggest that soldiers cleared rooms significantly faster when using PNVG than when using binocular NVGs. The largest benefit occurred for engaging targets placed in the extreme corners of rooms. Applications and trade-offs are discussed along with the need for increased human performance studies addressing close combat under NVGs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rogalski A (2012) History of infrared detectors. Opto−Electronics Rev 20:279–308

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chrzanowski K (2013) Review of night vision technology. Opto−Electronics Rev 21(2):153–181

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blake R, Sekuler R (2006) Perception, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fielder AR, Moseley MJ (1996) Does stereopsis matter in humans? Eye 10(2):233–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jourdan IC, Dutson E, Garcia A, Vleugels T, Leroy J, Mutter D, Marescaux J (2004) Stereoscopic vision provides a significant advantage for precision robotic laparoscopy. Br J Surg 91:879–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boff KR, Lincoln JE (eds) (1988) Engineering data compendium: human perception and performance, volumes I and II. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH

    Google Scholar 

  7. Craig JL, Geiselman EE (1998) Further development of the panoramic night vision goggle. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual SAFE Symposium. SAFE Association, Phoenix Retrieved from http://safeassociation.com/proceedings.html

    Google Scholar 

  8. L-3 AN/PVS-31 BNVD: Gen3 binocular night vision device. (2018). Tactical Night Vision Company. Retrieved from https://tnvc.com/shop/l-3-anpvs-31-bnvd/

  9. Traquair HM (1938) An introduction to clinical perimetry, Chpt. 1. Henry Kimpton, London, pp 4–5

    Google Scholar 

  10. Craig J (1999) Integrated panoramic night vision goggle (Tech. Rep. No. AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2002-0080). Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH

    Google Scholar 

  11. Craig, J. L., Task, H. L., & Flipovich, D. (1997). Development and evaluation of the panoramic night vision goggle. In Proceedings of Shepard’s 6th International Night Vision Conference and Exhibition

  12. Marasco PL, Task HL (1999) Optical characterization of wide field-of-view night vision devices. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Arsdel RV, Baldwin JB, Hausmann MA, Harrington LK, Craig JL, Koepke CG (2006) NVG adjustment methods, eyepiece focus settings, and vision. In: Brown W, Marasco PL, Rash CE, Reese CE (eds) Proceedings of SPIE–The International Society for Optical Engineering: Vol. 6224. Helmet and head-mounted displays XI: Technologies and applications. SPIE Press, Bellingham, p 62240

    Google Scholar 

  14. CuQlock-Knopp VG, Sipes DE, Bender E, Merritt JO (1997) Resolution vs. FOV tradeoff for monocular night vision goggles simulators (Tech. Rep. No. ARL-TR-1424). U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground

    Google Scholar 

  15. Donohue-Perry MM, Davis SA, Task HL (1994) Visual acuity vs. field-of-view light level for night vision goggles (NVG) (Report No. AL/CF-TR-1994-0076). Armstrong Laboratory, Crew Systems Directorate, Human Engineering Division, Human Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

    Google Scholar 

  16. Parush A, Gauthier MS, Arseneau L, Tang D (2011) The human factors of night vision goggles: perceptual, cognitive, and physical factors. Rev Human Factors Ergonom 7:238–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557234X11410392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Szoboszlay, Z., Haworth, L., Simpson, C., & Rutkowski, M. (2001). A comparison of the AVS-9 and the panoramic night vision goggle during rotorcraft hover and landing. Presented at the American Helicopter Society S71h Annual Forum, Washington, DC, May 9-11, 2001. p1467

  18. Adam J (2004) Results of NVG-induced neck strain questionnaire study in CH-146 Griffon aircrew (Tech. Rep. No. 2004-153). Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brickner MS (1989) Helicopter flights with night vision goggles: human factors aspects (NASA Tech. Memorandum No. 101039). NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cho AA, Clark JB, Rupert AH (1995) Visually triggered migraine headaches affect spatial orientation and balance in a helicopter pilot. Aviat Space Environ Med 66:353–358

    Google Scholar 

  21. Negrette A (1998) Flying blind: error reduction and NVGs. Rotor Wing 32(8):53

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rash CE, van de Pol C, Harris E, McGilberry W, King R, Braithwaite M, Adams M, Hiatt K (2009) The effect of a monocular helmet-mounted display on aircrew health: a cohort study of Apache AH Mk1 pilots four-year review (Tech. Rep. No. USAARL 2010-09). U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Fort Rucker

    Google Scholar 

  23. Renshaw PF (2007) A self-report critical incident assessment tool for army night vision goggle helicopter operations. Hum Factors 49:200–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dutoit, E., Ayers, D., Heller, F., Holloway, C., McDonald, K., Redden, E. (1996). The impact of field of view on the performance of some infantry tasks. Proceedings of the Second Annual U.S. Army Conference on Applied Statistics, 23-25 October 1996 (pp.17-25) Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

  25. Angel HA, Gaughan PM, Vilhena PGS, Boyne S (2005) Examination of the effect of field of view on urban target detection (DRDC T Report CR 2005–023). Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  26. Angel HA (2004a) Examination of the effect of night vision devices on C71A target engagement accuracy (DRDC T Report CR 2004-173). Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  27. Angel HA (2004b) A comparison of monocular, biocular and binocular night vision goggles with and without laser aiming devices for engaging targets in a bush lane (DRDC T Report CR 2004-172). Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  28. CuQlock-Knopp VG, Torgerson W, Sipes DE, Bender E, Merritt JO (1995) Comparison of monocular, biocular, and binocular night vision goggles for traversing off-road terrain on foot (Tech. Rep. No. ARL-TR-747). U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Grounds

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Angel HA, Massel LJ (2005) Examination of the effect of night vision devices on rifle target engagement accuracy during bush lane engagements (DRDC T Report CR -2005-069). Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  30. Angel HA (2005) Examination of the effect of night vision devices on rifle target engagement accuracy during urban operations (Tech. Rep. No. CR 2005-066). Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  31. Blair JP, Martaindale MH (2014) Evaluating police tactics: an empirical assessment of room entry techniques. Anderson Publishing, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Barnaba JM, Wilson CW, Baez-Vazquez M (2008) Safety qualification and operational assessment of a night vision cueing and display system. In: Marasco PL, Brown RW, Jennings SA, Harding TH (eds) Proceedings of SPIE–The International Society for Optical Engineering: Vol. 6955. Helmet- and head-mounted displays XIII: Technologies and applications. SPIE press, Bellingham

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sovelius R, Oska J, Rintala R, Huhtala H, Siitonen S (2008) Neck muscle strain when wearing helmet and NVG during acceleration on a trampoline. Aviat Space Environ Med 79:112–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Thuresson M, Äng B, Linder J, Harms-Ringdahl K (2003) Neck muscle activity in helicopter pilots: effects of position and helmet-mounted equipment. Aviat Space Environ Med 74:527–532

    Google Scholar 

  35. Thuresson M, Äng B, Linder J, Harms-Ringdahl K (2005) Mechanical load and EMG activity in the neck induced by different head-worn equipment and neck postures. Int J Ind Ergon 35:13–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Biggs AT, Cain MS, Mitroff SR (2015) Cognitive training can reduce civilian casualties in a simulated shooting environment. Psychol Sci 26(8):1164–1176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hamilton JA, Lambert G, Suss J, Biggs AT (2019) Can cognitive training improve shoot/don’t-shoot performance? Evidence from live fire exercises. Am J Psychol 132(2):179–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Aviation Specialties Unlimited Incorporated. (2015). Generation III based P45 white phosphor image intensifiers [white paper]. Retrieved January 14, 2019 from Aviation Specialties Unlimited Incorporated: https://www.asunvg.com/Documents%20and%20Settings/39/Site%20Documents/White%20Papers/15_ASU_WP_WP_White%20Paper.pdf

  39. United States Army. (1993). FM 90-10-1 an infantryman’s guide to combat in built-up areas. Retrieved from http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/MILITARY/united_states_army_fm_90-10x1%20-%2012_may_1993%20-%20part09.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following personnel for their support of this research. Robert Parvin, Charles Arbuckle, Chip Lasky, and Pat Poirier. We would also like to thank the following organizations for their support of the research, High Point, NC. Police Department, Tactical Night Vision Company, Unity Tactical & L3 Technologies.

Funding

This research was funded by the Office of Naval Research. This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research (N0001418WX00247).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Warfighter Performance Lab, Naval Health Research Center (NHRC), 140 Sylvester Rd, San Diego, CA, 92106, USA

    Joseph A. Hamilton

  2. Naval Medical Research Unit – Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA

    Joseph A. Hamilton, Grant Roush, LCDR Micah J Kinney & LT Adam T. Biggs

  3. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, USA

    Joseph A. Hamilton

  4. Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Bethesda, USA

    Grant Roush

  5. Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, USA

    Joel Suss

Authors
  1. Joseph A. Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grant Roush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. LCDR Micah J Kinney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joel Suss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. LT Adam T. Biggs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph A. Hamilton.

Ethics declarations

The authors have no financial or non-financial competing interests in this manuscript. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the US Government. The authors are military Service members (or employees of, or contractors to, the US Government). This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17 U.S.C., §105 provides that copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the U.S. Government. Title 17 U.S.C., §101 defines a US Government work as a work prepared by a military service member or employee of the US Government as part of that person’s official duties. The study protocol was approved by the Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hamilton, J.A., Roush, G., Kinney, L.M.J. et al. Comparison of Night Vision Technology for Close-Quarters Combat Operations: How Field of View Impacts Live-Fire Scenarios. Hum Factors Mech Eng Def Saf 4, 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41314-020-00036-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41314-020-00036-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation